Apple tries to put Mac clone maker out of business citing EULA terms

Apple is suing Psystar over their Mac clone, saying the terms of the OS X End User License Agreement (EULA) forbid the owner from installing it on anything but Apple hardware. They allege Copyright Infringement by Psystar, as well as Inducement of Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, Trademark Infringement, and Trade Dress Infringement. In short they're trying to put Psystar out of business citing language in the Mac OS X license forbidding the owner from installing it on anything but Apple hardware.

Psystar's Open Computer takes advantage of Apple's switch from Motorola to Intel processors to make clones that run OS X. Although Apple licensed their OS to a number of different vendors in the 1990s, when Steve Jobs returned to the company license fees were increased and all the licensees eventually gave up the business.

The issue of whether a vendor can impose additional restrictions via EULA is a hot one. Apple lawyers say the license terms change the consumer's legal rights once they accept them. On the other side of the argument that puts Apple in an unfair position to require things that are unreasonable because otherwise consumers can't use the software they purchaed.

However there's a lot of debate in the legal community about it, and cases must really be decided on an individual basis. While there's a history of EULA's being upheld in court this case revolves around an unusual restriction. It's far from clear whether Apple will prevail. In fact htere are a number of good arguments against them.

Apple's attempt to control what consumers do with their software after purchase is questionable at best. Just as copyright holders have certain exclusive rights, so do property owners. Once you've purchased a piece of software the license has limited legal force beyond very basic questions like how many computers it can be installed on simultaneously.

Besides the copyright aspect of the case there's the question of whether Apple's license terms are monopolistic. The appearance that the EULA seems designed to limit competition could be a key factor in whether they are shot down by a judge. A restriction like on something like the number of computers you can install a piece of software on is a key factor in the company making enough money to cover development costs. This is a standard part of doing business. Restricting what the buyer can do with a product isn't.

The other claims, for trakemark and trade dress infringement appear intended to give another justification for the anti-competitive license terms of OS X. The argument goes something like this. By installing OS X on their computers, Psystar is giving consumers the mistaken impression that the clones are actually made by Apple. Apple's lawyers argue that since that's the only computer consumers are used to OS X being available only on they believe Psystar is selling actual Apple computers.

In other words they're claiming a previous lack of competition gives them a right to disallow future competition because consumers aren't used to it. There may be some compelling arguments for allowing Apple's restricted EULA provisions, but if this one is close enough to the top of the list to merit mentioning it in their legal argument I wouldn't be so sure.

31 user comments

Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy, apple hardware, what hardware are you referring too, because the last time i checked there was no apple logo on my Pentium, or on my Nvidia, or on my OCZ memory ether. oh wait you must me talking about that hardware lock on the motherboard so people couldn't install Non-Chiped Apple Stuff huh.

I remember that IBM had a conflict with companies that cloned their mainframes around 1980 and I think IBM lost that battle. Although the clone makers eventually were wiped out by their high costs of keeping-up w/hardware changes.

I expect that Apple will lose this battle too. But, since the cost of the clone hardware engineering will stay low it will be a significant threat to Apple.

LMFAO! thats like me buying a cell phone & saying i have to use provider X! oh wait!... These guys are the only ones that get away with this Shit! What if M$ said i can only install Winblows on an Intel system, or say a Dell system! no home built, no hp or anything just Dell?! If you are gonna buy a mac clone you probobly wont buy a mac so apple take your $50 for the os & be happy with that sale & hope maybe someone will eventually buy your computer! Next sony will tell me that i have to use a sony dvd player to play any movie that sony had a hand in making!

Originally posted by DXR88: Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...

Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.

Do I personally believe apple should limit themselves to apple branded hardware? No. I think they could take the market by storm if they opened up their licenses.
Do I believe they are right to sue? Yes. Their business model REQUIRES them to defend their software vigorously. If they do not, they might as well make their software open source (which isn't good for business)

Originally posted by DXR88: Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...

Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.

Do I personally believe apple should limit themselves to apple branded hardware? No. I think they could take the market by storm if they opened up their licenses.
Do I believe they are right to sue? Yes. Their business model REQUIRES them to defend their software vigorously. If they do not, they might as well make their software open source (which isn't good for business)

and by little dancing devils within my skull, i say they can take there EULA, twist it and shove it up there phat bums.

Open software is not good for business. your funny -_- . Linux, and Unix, have been around longer than Steve Jobs and his garage dork buddy's.

Originally posted by DXR88: Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...

Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.

Actually, just because something is stated in a EULA doesn't necessarily mean that those restrictions are legal to be placed upon the user in the first place. But it does give Apple a basis to take Psystar, or any other upstart, to court and bury them in legal fees. Happens all the time. Doesn't make it legal, or mean that Apple is actually right. With all of Apple's desktop computers basically being made by parts that you can buy off the counter, Apple might be looking at violating antitrust laws. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly, there is however something illegal about stifling competition. Which is what got MS in trouble in the 90's and also which caused the break up of AT&T to create the baby bells. This didn't happen because of a monopoly, this happened because of antitrust i.e. anti competition or in a more layman's terms anti-consumer.

One of the problems with AT&T was you had to use their phones, and only their phones. Sound familiar? It took a court case in the '70's to change that, which wasn't finally settled until the 80's. You could compare and extrapolate, the phone system was set up by and owned by AT&T, and AT&T said you can only use their equipment on their network ...so to speak. Apple has made it's OS, and has said it can only be run on it's sanctioned machines. Which are machines that you can go down to your local Best Buy and purchase. Is there a difference? Not much when looking at the raw practices. The main difference is that AT&T had a monopoly, where is apple does not. The courts ultimately sided with the consumer, and found such practices to be effectually illegal, or otherwise antitrust.

So to say that by legal straight forward terms Apple is in the right, isn't actually correct. Apple very well may be in the wrong. But the reality is Psystar probably doesn't have the capital to wade through a case like this in court. For example the At&T case took a better part of a decade to settle. That costs millions of dollars. So Psystar will probably fold, and all of this will be swept under the rug, until some big name company decides it could make some cash by doing the same thing. I am sure that will go to court as well, but as most lawsuits dealing with multi million dollar corporations, they settle out of court. At that point Apple will start selling their OS, to run on whatever machine like windows. At a highly inflated price of course.

Originally posted by lynchGOP: Ahhhhh........nothing better than reading a BOOK of a person's comments. Keep 'em short people. I lost interest after the 2nd sentence.

Agreed with first statement. Yet another reason to hate Apple. Bunch O' monopolistic pricks. Steve Jobs truly believes he is all high and mighty.

Basically I'd like to see someone PUT THE SMACK ON MAC!!!!!!!!!!!

this article doesn't really mention that Psystar created an update system of their own to update the software through its own proxy so that APPLE's new updates won't create conflicts in their systems. sounds similar to the jailbreak gang, hehe. part of the issue is that Apple's store-bought OS's are termed for "upgrade use only (blah, blah, blah...for use on Apple hardware)." This is as opposed to being freely able to buy a full version of Windows at the store for personal installation. Dunno if I'm really for a company telling me what to do, but this company is using it for profitable gain rather than personal use -- which I think is the real crux of it all. If he was just a hack telling everyone how to do it, or selling a kit for them to do it themselves, that'd be quite a different story in my mind.

If this were so, why have all the automotive companies not jumped on the bandwagon? You buy a brsnd name car and the eula states that you can only install their brand name parts. Just imagine, a break job jumps in price to 1500.00, an oil change becomes 500.00, an air filter now costs 250.00. Satelite radio and cell phones become a thing of the past because of the eula of the car manufacturers eula. You cannot change the color of your vehicle, add lights for trailer towing, add gps or any other inovation because of the car manufacturers eula.

This is greed gone wild. If that is the world that you live in and subscribe to it is about time you sat down and did some soul searching.

Even hollywood was set up by individuals who would not accept the unreasonable dictates of the compact in New York. They even physically stole the cameras to make their first efforts.

I have been tempted to purchase one of these computers just to try out this operating system which I hear is far superior to "windows". Unfortunately the price is still too much.

Originally posted by DXR88: Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...

Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.

Actually, just because something is stated in a EULA doesn't necessarily mean that those restrictions are legal to be placed upon the user in the first place. But it does give Apple a basis to take Psystar, or any other upstart, to court and bury them in legal fees. Happens all the time. Doesn't make it legal, or mean that Apple is actually right. With all of Apple's desktop computers basically being made by parts that you can buy off the counter, Apple might be looking at violating antitrust laws. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly, there is however something illegal about stifling competition. Which is what got MS in trouble in the 90's and also which caused the break up of AT&T to create the baby bells. This didn't happen because of a monopoly, this happened because of antitrust i.e. anti competition or in a more layman's terms anti-consumer.

One of the problems with AT&T was you had to use their phones, and only their phones. Sound familiar? It took a court case in the '70's to change that, which wasn't finally settled until the 80's. You could compare and extrapolate, the phone system was set up by and owned by AT&T, and AT&T said you can only use their equipment on their network ...so to speak. Apple has made it's OS, and has said it can only be run on it's sanctioned machines. Which are machines that you can go down to your local Best Buy and purchase. Is there a difference? Not much when looking at the raw practices. The main difference is that AT&T had a monopoly, where is apple does not. The courts ultimately sided with the consumer, and found such practices to be effectually illegal, or otherwise antitrust.

So to say that by legal straight forward terms Apple is in the right, isn't actually correct. Apple very well may be in the wrong. But the reality is Psystar probably doesn't have the capital to wade through a case like this in court. For example the At&T case took a better part of a decade to settle. That costs millions of dollars. So Psystar will probably fold, and all of this will be swept under the rug, until some big name company decides it could make some cash by doing the same thing. I am sure that will go to court as well, but as most lawsuits dealing with multi million dollar corporations, they settle out of court. At that point Apple will start selling their OS, to run on whatever machine like windows. At a highly inflated price of course.

Originally posted by DXR88: Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...

Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.

Actually, just because something is stated in a EULA doesn't necessarily mean that those restrictions are legal to be placed upon the user in the first place. But it does give Apple a basis to take Psystar, or any other upstart, to court and bury them in legal fees. Happens all the time. Doesn't make it legal, or mean that Apple is actually right. With all of Apple's desktop computers basically being made by parts that you can buy off the counter, Apple might be looking at violating antitrust laws. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly, there is however something illegal about stifling competition. Which is what got MS in trouble in the 90's and also which caused the break up of AT&T to create the baby bells. This didn't happen because of a monopoly, this happened because of antitrust i.e. anti competition or in a more layman's terms anti-consumer.

One of the problems with AT&T was you had to use their phones, and only their phones. Sound familiar? It took a court case in the '70's to change that, which wasn't finally settled until the 80's. You could compare and extrapolate, the phone system was set up by and owned by AT&T, and AT&T said you can only use their equipment on their network ...so to speak. Apple has made it's OS, and has said it can only be run on it's sanctioned machines. Which are machines that you can go down to your local Best Buy and purchase. Is there a difference? Not much when looking at the raw practices. The main difference is that AT&T had a monopoly, where is apple does not. The courts ultimately sided with the consumer, and found such practices to be effectually illegal, or otherwise antitrust.

So to say that by legal straight forward terms Apple is in the right, isn't actually correct. Apple very well may be in the wrong. But the reality is Psystar probably doesn't have the capital to wade through a case like this in court. For example the At&T case took a better part of a decade to settle. That costs millions of dollars. So Psystar will probably fold, and all of this will be swept under the rug, until some big name company decides it could make some cash by doing the same thing. I am sure that will go to court as well, but as most lawsuits dealing with multi million dollar corporations, they settle out of court. At that point Apple will start selling their OS, to run on whatever machine like windows. At a highly inflated price of course.

I have been reading and listening to these moronic arguments for way too many years.

1. Psystar didn't pay one single penny of the billions of dollars that Apple has spent on research and development. So, if Psystar gets squashed by Big Bad Apple, I will be right there cheering Apple on. Kick em again, Steve ! Companies like Psystar are parasites. They take someone else's ideas and grift a few dollars from it. I hope Apple bankrupts them.

2. The licensing program of the 90s did not improve Apple's market position at all. In fact, Apple actually lost both market share and sales to several of their so called partners that, in spite of their contractual agreements to not pursue Apple's established customers, but rather grow new customers, they undercut Apple's pricing and grifted what they could while they could from an already established customer base. It was a happy day when all of them either bailed or got the boot. Getting rid of the Clones was one of the first GREAT things that Steve did upon returning to Apple.

3. OH CHRIST. Another Nerd who hates Apple because they make their own hardware and software and make both work incredibly well together. What is WRONG with you. If all you want to do is buy motherboards, chips, power supplies and BUTT UGLY cases in which to stuff all that garbage; then please do that and stop bitching about "The most innovative company of the 20TH CENTURY." I mean really ... find a better argument; this is one is simply ludicrous.

4. If I buy OS X, I can install it on whatever I want. Wah Wah Wah. Well, good luck with that Tandy installation. Tell you what, when you have built your own company from scratch and created a product that is actually worth buying, successfully brought it to market and fought countless bloody battles with fierce competitors in the real world, put every single penny that you have and all that you can borrow on the line, then maybe the world will accept your position. Until then, SHUT UP.

5. The price is too high. REALLY. As compared to what? So, let me think about this. I can buy a Mac which according to PC Magazine will actually run Windows faster and better than most PC hardware and I can also have the beautiful world of Macintosh. Technology rehabilitation for Windows users who are finally weary of spending their time with one utility program or another trying to understand those inane cryptic messages that make you want to use abusive language at the dinner table; slowly, you can ween yourself from the dark side. Come towards the light. Mac really is superior in EVERY way. Gee, it'd be a pity to spend a few extra dollars in a MAJOR PURCHASE to get something SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than the closest competition. Christ, that borders on making sense. What was I thinking.

6. ATT; yeah those dirty greed mongering corporate nazis. Built the largest network in the United States to the tune of billions and billions of ATT dollars. Fiber is expensive, people, even with government subsidy. Offering the most comprehensive 2 and 3G network coverage. Yeah man, that ATT; they're nothing but a bunch of greedy bastards. I'm removing them from my Christmas card list and then, I'm going to sit in my basement and gloat at my massive blow to the establishment. Well, I've had my contract with ATT, then Cingular and now ATT again, probably around 10 years. Great 2 & 3G coverage in my area, phone quality is great. Frankly, even if there wasn't an iPhone, I would still keep my contract with ATT because, I've never had a single major problem with them.

7. Would some of you please try to learn to spell and construct complete sentences. Do you really want the world reading trashy diatribe with your signature on it. And some of you just need to GROW UP. Don't criticise people and companies that are out there actually doing something. Everyone should be thrilled that Apple is alive and well, otherwise, we'd all probably still be looking at crappy plasma displays and running MS DOS.

doobedoo, if you click the edit icon in the upper left hand corner of your message you can revise it.

This thread needed an Apple supporter and your post was quite articulate.

I guess your theory is the reason Macs do not sell well is that most of the population are idiots. Well seeing who we elect to run our governments and driving on any road is proof enough that the population is full of mental midgets.

I would drop the flaming of users that are not as articulate as you just because of their grammar and spelling. They out number you 20 to 1. Just because they are not articulate does not mean they are stupid and they get their point across. I can think of several I wouldn’t want to flame me and I normally do not mind being flamed.

Quote:If I buy OS X, I can install it on whatever I want. Wah Wah Wah. Well, good luck with that Tandy installation. Tell you what, when you have built your own company from scratch and created a product that is actually worth buying, successfully brought it to market and fought countless bloody battles with fierce competitors in the real world, put every single penny that you have and all that you can borrow on the line, then maybe the world will accept your position. Until then, SHUT UP.

its is mine i bought it i can do whatever i want to with it, and you not going to stop me, or anybody else.

your also in violation of Rule #6

Quote:OH CHRIST. Another Nerd who hates Apple because they make their own hardware and software and make both work incredibly well together. What is WRONG with you. If all you want to do is buy motherboards, chips, power supplies and BUTT UGLY cases in which to stuff all that garbage; then please do that and stop bitching about "The most innovative company of the 20TH CENTURY." I mean really ... find a better argument; this is one is simply ludicrous.

Wrong, Apple does not make there own hardware, they Chip the hardware With a special BIOS to allow it to run on MAC.

Again in violation of rule #6.

Quote:The price is too high. REALLY. As compared to what? So, let me think about this. I can buy a Mac which according to PC Magazine will actually run Windows faster and better than most PC hardware and I can also have the beautiful world of Macintosh. Technology rehabilitation for Windows users who are finally weary of spending their time with one utility program or another trying to understand those inane cryptic messages that make you want to use abusive language at the dinner table; slowly, you can ween yourself from the dark side. Come towards the light. Mac really is superior in EVERY way. Gee, it'd be a pity to spend a few extra dollars in a MAJOR PURCHASE to get something SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than the closest competition. Christ, that borders on making sense. What was I thinking.

So if they can run MS on MAC Why cant it Mac Run on PC. Kind of hypocritical don't you think.

I haven't the time to wast on petty squabbles, this will be my last post here. flame me or any other members and you will be seeing a Moderator.

Quote:
If I buy OS X, I can install it on whatever I want. Wah Wah Wah. Well, good luck with that Tandy installation. Tell you what, when you have built your own company from scratch and created a product that is actually worth buying, successfully brought it to market and fought countless bloody battles with fierce competitors in the real world, put every single penny that you have and all that you can borrow on the line, then maybe the world will accept your position. Until then, SHUT UP.

its is mine i bought it i can do whatever i want to with it, and you not going to stop me, or anybody else.

your also in violation of Rule #6

You're right; I'm not going to stop you. Actually, you can't do whatever you want—that's against the rules of civilization. But you can sure try. Anarchy rules, right? Although, you might end up paying someone a truckload of money for violating their copyrights, patents or intellectual property laws, but hey, go for it. I don't understand your position, but more power to you.

Quote:
OH CHRIST. Another Nerd who hates Apple because they make their own hardware and software and make both work incredibly well together. What is WRONG with you. If all you want to do is buy motherboards, chips, power supplies and BUTT UGLY cases in which to stuff all that garbage; then please do that and stop bitching about "The most innovative company of the 20TH CENTURY." I mean really ... find a better argument; this is one is simply ludicrous.

Wrong, Apple does not make there own hardware, they Chip the hardware With a special BIOS to allow it to run on MAC.

Again in violation of rule #6.

Oh come on, NOBODY makes everything. All manufacturers buy chips, power supplies, etc. Can you imagine a company that tried to control every single aspect of manufacturing? Their plant would be the size of Alaska.

What I am talking about is Apple Engineering. It is their hardware design and the integration of their software that make Macs work so well. I started with CPM, then Apple DOS, MS DOS, Windows and Macintosh. I find the Mac operating system to be the most reliable and easiest to use system that I've ever experienced. It's not perfect, but, there's no such thing in the computer world.

Quote:
The price is too high. REALLY. As compared to what? So, let me think about this. I can buy a Mac which according to PC Magazine will actually run Windows faster and better than most PC hardware and I can also have the beautiful world of Macintosh. Technology rehabilitation for Windows users who are finally weary of spending their time with one utility program or another trying to understand those inane cryptic messages that make you want to use abusive language at the dinner table; slowly, you can ween yourself from the dark side. Come towards the light. Mac really is superior in EVERY way. Gee, it'd be a pity to spend a few extra dollars in a MAJOR PURCHASE to get something SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than the closest competition. Christ, that borders on making sense. What was I thinking.

So if they can run MS on MAC Why cant it Mac Run on PC. Kind of hypocritical don't you think.

I haven't the time to wast on petty squabbles, this will be my last post here. flame me or any other members and you will be seeing a Moderator.

It's not hypocritical, it's quality control. Apple doesn't want to get in the business of trying to write their OS for PCs. Impossible to support. There are, what, 5000 PC hardware manufacturers out there and all of them are competing on price, therefore, they cut corners everywhere possible to keep cost low and sales high. And they have problems all the time. The Mac has it's occasional burb, but, compared to my Windows experience, the problems are significantly fewer on a Mac.

Apple engineers, okay, ... ASSEMBLE ... their hardware and the OS engineers write the software for the hardware thus ensuring that everything works as well as possible thereby eliminating a huge amount of user dissatisfaction.

All of my friends that use Windows have problems and gripe about it incessantly. Yet, many of them also tow the Redmond line and never miss an opportunity to bash Apple. It boggles my mind.

What will the moderator do? Kick me out of the blog?

Well, for any offense I have caused, my apologies. I've been in the industry for 20 years ... guess I'm a little too seasoned and jaded.

You have to break the rules for a moderator to get involved. You comments are not close to that. They have the power to just blow you away, suspend you or anything they want to do to you. Being a newbie gives you added protection.

I hate Microsoft but I hate Apple much more. Apple wants to 'own' you. I find that repulsive. I don't like paying money to get pushed around.

I will not upgrade to Vista and I have had automatic uopdates turned off for a year. If I feel the need for a new OS it will be Linux.

Apple is for persons that care more about how their computer looks than being able to re-configure it on the fly. Apple is for persons that will sacrifice power for being easy.

I like to be able to upgrade my graphics card so I can run a new game. I prefer the ugly big box that allows be to swap out anything I what to when ever I want. I also like the value of a PC. I just bought parts that will take me beyond the Mac for about $500 in the areas that count for me. I will scrap everything but my SATA drives. The motherboard allows 6 internal and 2 external SATA drives. I am sure wanting a computer like that must sound crazy to you.

Apple has a reputation with me of making bold faced lies about what the Mac could do for decades. Half the persons I know that bought Macs could not run the PC software they were told would run on the Mac before they bought it. The other half just wanted simple computer functionality. These persons were happy with their Mac.

Originally posted by Mez: You have to break the rules for a moderator to get involved. You comments are not close to that. They have the power to just blow you away, suspend you or anything they want to do to you. Being a newbie gives you added protection.

I hate Microsoft but I hate Apple much more. Apple wants to 'own' you. I find that repulsive. I don't like paying money to get pushed around.

I will not upgrade to Vista and I have had automatic uopdates turned off for a year. If I feel the need for a new OS it will be Linux.

Apple is for persons that care more about how their computer looks than being able to re-configure it on the fly. Apple is for persons that will sacrifice power for being easy.

I like to be able to upgrade my graphics card so I can run a new game. I prefer the ugly big box that allows be to swap out anything I what to when ever I want. I also like the value of a PC. I just bought parts that will take me beyond the Mac for about $500 in the areas that count for me. I will scrap everything but my SATA drives. The motherboard allows 6 internal and 2 external SATA drives. I am sure wanting a computer like that must sound crazy to you.

Apple has a reputation with me of making bold faced lies about what the Mac could do for decades. Half the persons I know that bought Macs could not run the PC software they were told would run on the Mac before they bought it. The other half just wanted simple computer functionality. These persons were happy with their Mac.

Apple wants to own you? Well, regardless of which platform you subscribe to: Windows or Macintosh, you become a dependent of that system. You invest in software particular to the platform and this is fundamentally why users are reluctant to change after becoming institutionalized by the platform to which they have subscribed.

Believe me, if you favor Microsoft over Apple, then Microsoft is just as much your keeper as if your support was with Apple. I'm not trying to be insulting, but, this is not a valid argument. It smacks of misinformation and emotional bias, which we all have. But you are certainly entitled to believe what you wish.

Your next line is incredible; you've just defined exactly why I can't stand Windows. "You've had automatic updates turned off for a year." Why? Problems perhaps.

Your next OS will be Linux. Fantastic. I'm sure you're aware of this, but just in case, OS X is based on BCS Unix, one of the oldest and most mature versions of Unix available. And, Apple has an open source community that feeds it. If operating at the kernel level is your desire, you can certainly do the same with OS X.

Your next comments are baseless, biased opinions: "Apple is for persons that care more about how their computer looks than being able to re-configure it on the fly. Apple is for persons that will sacrifice power for being easy."

Oh brother, I don't know when you last looked at a Mac, but, this statement is just simply not true.

I do care about how my computer looks and it is true that Apple has been a design leader in computer technology for decades. Sacrificing power for easy...are you kidding me?

Every article that I have read over the past 3 years from Newsweek, PC Magazine, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal—all reputable sources, have given the Mac the highest honors that you can get, not only in design, but in performance as well. Apple has had five consecutive quarters of increased Mac sales from the previous year's quarterly performance. Macintosh has a higher percentage of market share than any individual computer company. True, collectively, PC market share is dominant—but that just isn't the whole picture.

Dell has been tanking for two straight years. Stagnation in sales, losing market share, massive layoffs. Dozens of PC manufacturers have gone out of business entirely and yet in the same timeframe, Apple has grown market share and is, even today, hiring as fast as they can find talent.

"Apple has a reputation with me of making bold faced lies about what the Mac could do for decades. Half the persons I know that bought Macs could not run the PC software they were told would run on the Mac before they bought it. The other half just wanted simple computer functionality. These persons were happy with their Mac."

Really? I run both vertical and shrink wrapped Windows applications on my Mac. I've done so successfully with a Bootcamp installation and using virtualization software. No problems here. Sounds like more bias to me.

Simple computer functionality. This is also biased, factually baseless commentary. Every time I get in a tangle with some PC bigot, they whip out this line.

The only area that I know of where Macintosh has suffered a significant lack of exposure, is in games. But you know what, Apple had the largest turnout of developers this year in the history of the company. In fact, they had so many developers applying for admission to DEVCON 08, they had to turn many away. A large number of game developers were there. I predict in the future, even this argument against the Mac will no longer be valid.

But in terms of what a Mac can do...I can do anything on a Mac BETTER than I can on a PC. And usually, if an application doesn't work on a Mac as well as it does a PC, it's because it's been programmed to not be as friendly with a Mac. Two perfect examples of this are: Microsoft Office and Quickbooks, both coincidentally are products owned by Microsoft. Hmmmm. Looks like tactical politics to me.

That is basicly what this article is about. You by software that demand you use it the way they want.

I never have tried to defend Microsoft. They are rotten to the core. I believe Apple is much worse. I don't update because I fear them more than I do the trackers. I fear Apple even more. I don't want their crap on my computer. I know several folks that added some tunes to their ipod illegally and itunes punished them by erasing all their music on their ipod. They had been doing that off an on for years then WHACK! They should have had their automatic updates turned off and paid the price for that stupidity. I am sure you approve but they wised up and deleted itunes from their computer.

I don't really know what better means to you. Most of what I do than is not disk intensive is fast enough for me. I you are going to tell me that disks run faster on a Mac I will know you are nuts.

That is basicly what this article is about. You by software that demand you use it the way they want.

I never have tried to defend Microsoft. They are rotten to the core. I believe Apple is much worse. I don't update because I fear them more than I do the trackers. I fear Apple even more. I don't want their crap on my computer. I know several folks that added some tunes to their ipod illegally and itunes punished them by erasing all their music on their ipod. They had been doing that off an on for years then WHACK! They should have had their automatic updates turned off and paid the price for that stupidity. I am sure you approve but they wised up and deleted itunes from their computer.

I don't really know what better means to you. Most of what I do than is not disk intensive is fast enough for me. I you are going to tell me that disks run faster on a Mac I will know you are nuts.

"I know several folks that added some tunes to their ipod illegally and itunes punished them by erasing all their music on their ipod. They had been doing that off an on for years then WHACK! They should have had their automatic updates turned off and paid the price for that stupidity. I am sure you approve but they wised up and deleted itunes from their computer."

WRONG. You don't buy software. You buy a license to use the software and the owner of the software does have the right to define terms of use. Again, I hope Apple puts Psystar out of business.

If you are saying that your friends adding music that was downloaded illegally or copied illegally in any way, then I would say they are guilty of copyright infringement. For some reason, a lot of people seem to feel that it's okay to violate copyright laws. However, these same people would never agree that it was okay for someone to steal their car. In my book, theft is theft. Period. I know this is a hotly debated topic, but in my mind there is no debate. If you unlawfully take property from a person or even a company that holds the rights to the property, you are committing a crime. Because software and digital music are so easily copied and downloaded, it blurs the issue. I guess it really comes down to the character of the individual; it shouldn't be what you can get away with; it should be what is right and wrong and you should know the difference.

I have tons of music in iTunes; all of it has either been ripped from CDs that I own or downloaded from the iTunes store. I have never had a problem that I wasn't able to resolve with iTunes support. I know that there are lots of alternatives to iTunes. iTunes doesn't work for you, find something else. Although I will say that there are over 30 million iTunes users and I suspect that things can't be that screwed up or more customers would find something else.

The speed of drives is relative to the drive mechanism, the I/O channel, how much RAM you have, processor cache, speed and design. ESATA SATA 7200 RPM 10000 RPMs. Just depends on what you need. You can certainly configure a Mac Pro with up to 4 SATA drives. Not fast enough: Fiber card and RAID.

Funny that the dominant platform in post production video editing and sound engineering is a MAC. There isn't a more disk intensive, RAM demanding environment than that, except maybe animation and rendering, which are also dominant universes of the Mac.

I'm not nuts; I just prefer to debate with people who are well informed. You are not.

lol::: just laughing at the "apple wants to own you" connemt.. That's great..

Some poor n00b a couple of months ago, a long time mac owner and user went bought himself an ipod classic.... guess what, to put any legally bought itunes content on it apple required him to pay out for a new pc simply because his 5 or 6 year old mac wasn't up to running leopard (which the classic looks for)

Screw apple. They take an open source operating system, stick a load of drm and a eula on it, some pretties and some software blatently filched from the FOSS community and force people to pay through the nose.. they are as bad as M$ but in a different attempt at a monopolistic method.

Give your mac a boost.. get rid of the rubbish apple bloatware and eula and install openBSD.. same thing after all. ;)

Just another thing while somebody is standing up for a Eula that attempts to be global...

There is a very good possibility that in the country this other caomany are based the Eula breaks their local state rights.. so Eula be damned.. If the laws of the country I live in give me the right to reverse engineer and copy software then that's the long and short of it, and there isn't anything apple or anybody else can do about it..

Jobs and Gates.. no wonder they fell out.. probably couldn't decide on the best way to really shit on the consumer when given a choice of two.. and didn't think they would get away with doing both from the same company....

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Aug 2008 @ 20:45

You should have quit while you were ahead. I don't know and really don't care if Apple can make better use of the hardware than Microsoft. I suspect if it does I suspect it is not a big difference but again I really don't know and don't care. I would not buy a MAC if it ran twice as fast because I can't stand the interface. However, I am pretty sure HDs like SATAs are almost completely software independent.

Does the Apple logo give hard disks Bionic powers?

Maybe if I put an Apple logo on my car it will fly or do I need to pray to the Apple god first?

If you look on the drive specifications they do not have specification for different OSs.

I did not see anything in your post or in any of the literature I could find that would suggest your claim that HDs run faster on a Mac. If I am wrong, inform me!

I do not claim to be an expert on hard disks but I know a little. Hard disks are one of the devices that are pretty much independent to the OS. The OS gives instructions then the HD executes them. Even if the instructions take longer on a PC the instruction is only a tiny part of the over all job. If they had to make calls to the OS as they were transferring data they would run like crap. That happens when you run a HD through a USB port. I do know the CPU is involved in data translations with a USB port and might be affected by the OS. That is why the same HD runs so much slower if it is connected to a USB port. I really can't believe the hard disk runs faster on a Mac than a PC. Unless you can come up with hard facts on seek times or even transfer rates being truly improved on a Mac I will continue to think you are nuts. I do not consider a few nano seconds difference on a one minute file transfer as being significant. To me, that is unnoticeable (the same).

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Aug 2008 @ 12:27

Originally posted by Mez: You should have quit while you were ahead. I don't know and really don't care if Apple can make better use of the hardware than Microsoft. I suspect if it does I suspect it is not a big difference but again I really don't know and don't care. I would not buy a MAC if it ran twice as fast because I can't stand the interface. However, I am pretty sure HDs like SATAs are almost completely software independent.

Does the Apple logo give hard disks Bionic powers?

Maybe if I put an Apple logo on my car it will fly or do I need to pray to the Apple god first?

If you look on the drive specifications they do not have specification for different OSs.

I did not see anything in your post or in any of the literature I could find that would suggest your claim that HDs run faster on a Mac. If I am wrong, inform me!

I do not claim to be an expert on hard disks but I know a little. Hard disks are one of the devices that are pretty much independent to the OS. The OS gives instructions then the HD executes them. Even if the instructions take longer on a PC the instruction is only a tiny part of the over all job. If they had to make calls to the OS as they were transferring data they would run like crap. That happens when you run a HD through a USB port. I do know the CPU is involved in data translations with a USB port and might be affected by the OS. That is why the same HD runs so much slower if it is connected to a USB port. I really can't believe the hard disk runs faster on a Mac than a PC. Unless you can come up with hard facts on seek times or even transfer rates being truly improved on a Mac I will continue to think you are nuts. I do not consider a few nano seconds difference on a one minute file transfer as being significant. To me, that is unnoticeable (the same).

While not necessarily true,the following are independent from the OS. Memory,CPU. HardDisks are not even 1% independent from the OS, like they used to be. i remember having to type in the binary instructions to the HardDisks to get it to start on the 80186 & 80286. the only thing that happens now is a post, to see if the hardware initializes correctly,the only independent Software for harddrives have are S.M.A.R.T.-Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology.

other than that the only way to get a harddisk to function, is to have an MBR in place and a proper format such as NTFS, MFS, or EXT4, or Rieser4.

obviously though, i don't really care for apple or Steve and his Band'O Garage Dorks, for that matter. although it is good for a editor's whether it be Video or Music, or picture processing, but then again Linux has dominated that market as well. Linux has a foothold in just about every thing, the only thing it really can't do is easy gaming it can game it just takes awhile to setup.

I was pretty sure but I was out of my solid expertise so I wanted wiggle room. I was sure I would be corrected or vindicated by some expert. I didn't want to fall into the same trap doobedoo fell into. If you spout garbage here, someone will put you straight.

I would be running Linux if it wasn't for thousands of dollars invested in software that runs on MS platform. I am a developer and one of the languages I use does not run on Linux. I am convinced I will not upgrade any MS products unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I don't want to give those son of a guns any money. Plus they are now screwing up every thing the make. How can you have a product that ran fine for years then put out trash???? Don't they test??? Why do they completely change interfaces in version 7? I am sure you have only suits (used car salesmen) in management. If you had even one technical manager he/she would have stopped that nonsense. I expect things to screw up in version 1 but not version 7!

UNIX was conceived in an atmosphere where mistakes were not tolerated much. Both Apple and MS 'grew up' with more forgiving users. What is amazing is they (Unix/Linux) have yet to put out garbage.

If Macs could utilize the hardware so well you would see the hardware intensive apps like Oracle run on a Mac.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Aug 2008 @ 15:10

I was pretty sure but I was out of my solid expertise so I wanted wiggle room. I was sure I would be corrected or vindicated by some expert. I didn't want to fall into the same trap doobedoo fell into. If you spout garbage here, someone will put you straight.

I would be running Linux if it wasn't for thousands of dollars invested in software that runs on MS platform. I am a developer and one of the languages I use does not run on Linux. I am convinced I will not upgrade any MS products unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I don't want to give those son of a guns any money. Plus they are now screwing up every thing the make. How can you have a product that ran fine for years then put out trash???? Don't they test??? Why do they completely change interfaces in version 7? I am sure you have only suits (used car salesmen) in management. If you had even one technical manager he/she would have stopped that nonsense. I expect things to screw up in version 1 but not version 7!

UNIX was conceived in an atmosphere where mistakes were not tolerated much. Both Apple and MS 'grew up' with more forgiving users. What is amazing is they (Unix/Linux) have yet to put out garbage.

If Macs could utilize the hardware so well you would see the hardware intensive apps like Oracle run on a Mac.

Trap. What trap. What a load of claptrap.

Thank God develops represent less than a quarter of 1% of all users. I just made that up—aren't statistics and bold statements wonderful.

You're Oracle comment is incorrect. Oracle IS available for Mac OS X and has been available for Mac for some time. I was using X windows on Oracle at Apple in the 90s.

My hope for all of you so bent on hatred and animosity towards companies that have proved their business models successful is that some day you will be able to prove your bias in the court of public opinion. Bitching is easy. My opinion is that Macs are just fine; in fact, I think they're just the cat's meow. I have no desire to get involved with the geeksphere of Unix. Command line—truly the domain of programmers and developers—of which I am most definitely not. Glad you're out there, but, you have little impact on my day to day. My point is that there are more people who prefer the easy of Apple to an environment like Linux/Unix. I don't care if you can tweak hardware to omph a few extra cycles out of it. I don't need to design, engineer, build and paint a car in order to drive one. All I have to do is buy the car, put gas in the car and drive the freaking car. There is life outside the car you know.

But please, continue to spend your extra cycles hating Apple, Microsoft and whomever the next flavor of the month is. HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE. Me uber alles. Anarchy Rules !!! Now where did I put that remote.

Actually, while I don't hate Microsoft, I do feel that their products suck. That's why I use a Mac. But, I think as a company, Microsoft has proven themselves to be a resilient competitor. They've made zillions of dollars and sired thousands of millionaires. But, I guess it's wrong for any company to be successful isn't it. I sure wish the people who bitch so much would vote with their pocketbooks, because, if nobody bought Microsoft Office, Windows or their other products, Microsoft would have a really hard time staying in business. And the same is true for Apple and every other company out there. So vote today people. Of course, if your demographic population is one quarter of one percent...you're not likely to put anyone out of business, except maybe yourself.

"Some poor n00b a couple of months ago, a long time mac owner and user went bought himself an ipod classic.... guess what, to put any legally bought itunes content on it apple required him to pay out for a new pc simply because his 5 or 6 year old mac wasn't up to running leopard (which the classic looks for)"

Anyone that is so STUPID that they can't even read the requirements for a product before they buy it deserves the misery they get. This is not Apple's fault.

Rotech Healthcare, Inc., has built its business by acquiring healthcare equipment companies in medically underserviced areas and incorporating them into a larger, more efficient network. As a result, Rotech processes information across varied and complex software, operating systems, and IT environments.

To consolidate its complex, multisite operations, Rotech developed a service-oriented architecture (SOA) to manage its data. The SOA and cluster technology enable Rotech to use service-based software that interoperates over different development technologies. The SOA uses nodes on the company’s IT network to make disparate software available to each employee in every location. Rotech staff in any office can seamlessly access all the information on the company’s internal network.

Using the cluster computing technology, multiple computers, storage devices, and redundant interconnections form what appears to users as a single, highly available system. Rotech IT administrators rely on cluster computing for both load balancing and high availability, spreading functionality across the network and ensuring uptime.

The challenge of an SOA is its reliance on multiple layers of software, servers, and applications to operate as a seamless intuitive interface. Today’s technology offers plenty of options, but finding cost-effective solutions can be time-consuming and full of integration problems. To economically support the critical functions of its SOA, Rotech implemented Mac OS X Server and Xserve running Oracle Database 10g Real Application Clusters (RAC).

Deploying Oracle Database 10g RAC on Mac products reflects Rotech’s movement toward a fully integrated computing grid instead of distinct silos. “We use multiple locations to process single orders,” explains Albert Prast, Rotech’s CIO and CTO. “For example, we’ll receive an order in Idaho, the call will be routed to our call center in Kentucky, and by the time the customer hangs up, the order will have been communicated to the customer’s local pharmacy or, if necessary, drop-shipped to the customer’s home back in Idaho — in less than five hours. We can’t operate each location as an individual entity or we couldn’t provide that level of service.”

“Try and Buy”
Deploying Oracle RAC on Mac OS X Server and storing it on Xserve RAID was unconventional, but configured comparisons indicated it would cost less than half of what running Oracle on Sun Solaris or other solutions would cost. To demonstrate performance, Apple offered Rotech a Try and Buy program, allowing the company to spec out and configure Mac products for Oracle, try them for 90 days, and then decide whether to make the purchase.

“This program alleviated the risk of trying something new,” says Prast. “For us, it verified Apple’s commitment to customer service — and we weren’t disappointed. The combination of Apple running Oracle basically creates a database that never breaks.”

Apple configured and deployed both Mac OS X Server and Xserve RAID for Oracle RAC independent of Rotech’s networks. The setup was completely functional before Rotech migrated its data. “It is the sort of innovative collaboration between Apple and Oracle that makes our cluster technology work. The solution can scale, it supports our SOA, and it just works,” says Prast.

Actually I also lost interest after a couple of sentences... and WTF is with all the double posting.. you don't look big or clever.. in fact you sound like Jenny Craig trying to get me to join weightwatchers..

Their business models really aren't that successful.. that's why they NEED to use the proven anti-competition tactics time and time again. Anybody can turn a huge profit by using lock-in and proprietary hidden secretive code. It's a fact, and their wriggling and litigation proves it..

I'm sorry to say this but.. If you NEED to use an application for development that ONLY runs on an apple or M$ platform then you obviously can't code for shit.. Get out of the hand holding kintergarten of proprietary applications for proprietary platforms and into the real world of raw platform independent coding.. oh sorry.. see earlier point of not being able to code for shit...

Up until apple Unix was not so much an operating system as a set of agreed standards.. Anybody could build for it without needing anything specific from sco or berkley other than the standards books that they openly published which had details of certain differences in implementation of system calls and the like..
Even Sun went open source a couple of years ago, realising that the future is in allowing everybody to see how it works, and how to make better things for it. That doesn't mean people will not buy their OS.. it just means that they have to keep it up to scratch if they want to have a viable product in the marketplace.
I know more than a few sys-admins who were very glad to be at long last able to download open solaris and see why certain things were a pain for them, and make little changes to suit their business.. It isn't an impediment to sun, in fact it's the opposite as it makes their OS more attractive to those with specific needs.

As for the clone makers.. I had an IBM 8088 pc way back.. it was 5 times the price of a "clone" and performed no better.. If it had been left to IBM we wouldn't be here now on the internet.. we would probably still be at the 286 stage. Remember the Compaq deskpro386? The first time the cloners took the lead. I had one of those as well. It cost less than my IBM true blue 8088.
So what you are saying is "apple have the right by a restrictive EULA to stifle competition and progress".. great.. die along with your dinosaur business model and all those who subscribe to it... Obviously you don't remember the days when M$ were giving their OS away on magazines.. 3.1 it was called, and designed to run on the new Compaq deskpro386... didn't hear IBM making much fuss. End result.. IBM gave up in the desktop and home computing market and went back to business mainframes and large number crunchers.. and they are enshrined in the C language.. if you know any.. the "H" instruction stands for /? the parent company of modern computing and grandfather of IBM....

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Aug 2008 @ 0:38

Doobedoo, I think I commend your persistance. You are no wimp but you do not know when to quit.

There is a huge difference between being able to run and app and running it for a serious purpose. I have Oracle on my computer. I am not proud! My computer is a PII dog! I do have fair memory and disk space.

Do you work for Rotech or is this the 'poster girl' for the Macs, proving Macs are the 'little engine that could'?

The Rotech app sounds like a serious app. Forgive me if I am not impressed. I have worked in the DC area for many years. Many of the databases I am familiar with have billions of records. I have yet to see one large database run on a Mac platform. There are few non government databases that can compare with big government. Those companies are well known companies that store massive amounts of data. Many of those database are also maintained in the DC area because it is easy to recruit the staff needed to build and maintain the beasts. I work with someone who was the chief DBA for the Marriot reservations database. He was hired to make the move off the mainframe. They didn’t use Macs when he was there.

If the Mac platform was bionic, they would all be using Mac platforms or do you think they are all idiots?

Quote:Anyone that is so STUPID that they can't even read the requirements for a product before they buy it deserves the misery they get. This is not Apple's fault.

Well I hope they learned their lesson and got rid of their Mac and got a real computer.

Quote:My point is that there are more people who prefer the easy of Apple to an environment like Linux/Unix.

I think I already stated Apple is for those that easy is the main priority. There is nothing wrong with that. They could care less if Apple costs more, is not very scalable and that the company has hidden agendas ect. My brother is smart and very successful. He doesn't like computers so he got a Mac. He would never think of upgrading hardware. He would just buy a new one. He has more money than expertise. That is fine but many of us have more expertise than money. Macs are not popular in that group.

Originally posted by varnull: Actually I also lost interest after a couple of sentences... and WTF is with all the double posting.. you don't look big or clever.. in fact you sound like Jenny Craig trying to get me to join weightwatchers..

Their business models really aren't that successful.. that's why they NEED to use the proven anti-competition tactics time and time again. Anybody can turn a huge profit by using lock-in and proprietary hidden secretive code. It's a fact, and their wriggling and litigation proves it..

I'm sorry to say this but.. If you NEED to use an application for development that ONLY runs on an apple or M$ platform then you obviously can't code for shit.. Get out of the hand holding kintergarten of proprietary applications for proprietary platforms and into the real world of raw platform independent coding.. oh sorry.. see earlier point of not being able to code for shit...

Up until apple Unix was not so much an operating system as a set of agreed standards.. Anybody could build for it without needing anything specific from sco or berkley other than the standards books that they openly published which had details of certain differences in implementation of system calls and the like..
Even Sun went open source a couple of years ago, realising that the future is in allowing everybody to see how it works, and how to make better things for it. That doesn't mean people will not buy their OS.. it just means that they have to keep it up to scratch if they want to have a viable product in the marketplace.
I know more than a few sys-admins who were very glad to be at long last able to download open solaris and see why certain things were a pain for them, and make little changes to suit their business.. It isn't an impediment to sun, in fact it's the opposite as it makes their OS more attractive to those with specific needs.

As for the clone makers.. I had an IBM 8088 pc way back.. it was 5 times the price of a "clone" and performed no better.. If it had been left to IBM we wouldn't be here now on the internet.. we would probably still be at the 286 stage. Remember the Compaq deskpro386? The first time the cloners took the lead. I had one of those as well. It cost less than my IBM true blue 8088.
So what you are saying is "apple have the right by a restrictive EULA to stifle competition and progress".. great.. die along with your dinosaur business model and all those who subscribe to it... Obviously you don't remember the days when M$ were giving their OS away on magazines.. 3.1 it was called, and designed to run on the new Compaq deskpro386... didn't hear IBM making much fuss. End result.. IBM gave up in the desktop and home computing market and went back to business mainframes and large number crunchers.. and they are enshrined in the C language.. if you know any.. the "H" instruction stands for /? the parent company of modern computing and grandfather of IBM....

"Actually I also lost interest after a couple of sentences... and WTF is with all the double posting.. you don't look big or clever.. in fact you sound like Jenny Craig trying to get me to join weightwatchers.."

Actually, unlike most of the postings I've read on this blog, I was merely proving that Oracle is available for the Mac using data, not conjecture or snide remarks. I posted twice to prove my point. Otherwise the illiterati on this blog would be able to make blanket statements without supporting their position at all. I, at least, have data to prove mine. You wear your arrogance like a cheap leisure suit; it stinks of moth balls. Jenny Craig, oh brother.

"Their business models really aren't that successful.. that's why they NEED to use the proven anti-competition tactics time and time again. Anybody can turn a huge profit by using lock-in and proprietary hidden secretive code. It's a fact, and their wriggling and litigation proves it.."

This is pure smack. Got any data to substantiate your point? All companies as big as Apple, Microsoft and IBM have to protect themselves because there are always people and companies standing ready to take advantage of them any time they are able. And you're actually saying that Apple and Microsoft do not have proven, successful business models. Man ... I would sure be interested in hearing what you think a successful business model looks like. By the way, the entire business community disagrees with you. Billions in the bank. Doing business in 70 or more countries. In business for more than 30 years. ABILITY TO CHANGE WITH THE TIMES AND TRENDS. I'm sorry, but, in my mind these are real indicators of a successful business model.

The paradigm shift represented by open sourced tools such as Linux is great. I know a number of IT pros that hated NT for many logical reasons and changed their servers to Linux as they were able to do so. Great, I'm all for it. Do you really think this will have any impact on Apple's market. Nope. Two completely different markets. I hope Linux puts Microsoft out of business, but, I don't see that happening and they will not put Apple out of business either. Therefore, yes, I support the EULA. If Apple was my company and I spent my money building the company, hiring the talent, developing the products, copyrights, patents, legal fees and spending more money on all things required by businesses, I would certainly feel entitled to protect the intellectual property which I produced. Hey, do you develop for free? Maybe you should try that for a while. See how well free pays the bills.

"I'm sorry to say this but.. If you NEED to use an application for development that ONLY runs on an apple or M$ platform then you obviously can't code for shit.. Get out of the hand holding kintergarten of proprietary applications for proprietary platforms and into the real world of raw platform independent coding.. oh sorry.. see earlier point of not being able to code for shit..."

I'm sure you have a point, but absent references to anything specific, who knows what you are talking about. The point that I made was that Oracle is available for the Mac and is used in real world appplications, such as the example above, because someone posted a comment that Oracle was not available on the Mac because Oracle is such a hardware intensive environment and would not run on a Mac. Obviously none of you have a clue about X Serve technology, otherwise you would never make such a statement. The second largest credit card processing center in the world is run on a massive X Serve cluster. What do you mean "need to use an application for development that ONLY runs on an Apple and Microsoft" More smack. Proprietary tools are a competitive edge, not a sign of weakness or dependence. And there are one hell of a lot of developers that agree. Have you ever actually even investigated any of the tools available for a Mac. Or are you content with what you know and what you learned a decade or more ago. My earlier post about the DEVCON this year with the largest turnout ever is a good trend indicator. I think you are in the minority on this issue.

"As for the clone makers.. I had an IBM 8088 pc way back.. it was 5 times the price of a "clone" and performed no better.. If it had been left to IBM we wouldn't be here now on the internet.. we would probably still be at the 286 stage. Remember the Compaq deskpro386? The first time the cloners took the lead. I had one of those as well. It cost less than my IBM true blue 8088.
So what you are saying is "apple have the right by a restrictive EULA to stifle competition and progress".. great.. die along with your dinosaur business model and all those who subscribe to it... Obviously you don't remember the days when M$ were giving their OS away on magazines.. 3.1 it was called, and designed to run on the new Compaq deskpro386... didn't hear IBM making much fuss. End result.. IBM gave up in the desktop and home computing market and went back to business mainframes and large number crunchers.. and they are enshrined in the C language.. if you know any.. the "H" instruction stands for /? the parent company of modern computing and grandfather of IBM..."

Okay, I will make one more attempt to address this issue. During Apple's darkest days, they made a very bad decision to license the operating system to clone manufacturers. This decision almost put Apple out of business. The culture of Apple is NOT the same as Microsoft or IBM. They have always done well ONLY when they were in complete control of everything. You may not like it, agree with it, but that's the truth. When Steve came back to Apple, he did three things that essentially saved the company. 1. He ended the clone program. 2. He fired the entire Board of Directors and hired industry giants to take their places and unlike most executives who sign on with a golden parachute which basically means they can't get hurt whether they produce or not, Steve only gave them stock options. This was his way of saying: Fix the company and make it work or you won't get anything. 3. He fired the Newton team, got rid of the Performas and refocused the company on what it does best, which is making great products that Apple can personally guarantee will work as advertised. And yes, this is based on close control of everything. It works. You don't have to like or agree with it and you can certainly choose how you want your computing world to be. But making comparisons to companies that were designed from day one with a dependency on Microsoft's operating system to Apple is at best erroneous.

Originally posted by Mez: Doobedoo, I think I commend your persistance. You are no wimp but you do not know when to quit.

There is a huge difference between being able to run and app and running it for a serious purpose. I have Oracle on my computer. I am not proud! My computer is a PII dog! I do have fair memory and disk space.

Do you work for Rotech or is this the 'poster girl' for the Macs, proving Macs are the 'little engine that could'?

The Rotech app sounds like a serious app. Forgive me if I am not impressed. I have worked in the DC area for many years. Many of the databases I am familiar with have billions of records. I have yet to see one large database run on a Mac platform. There are few non government databases that can compare with big government. Those companies are well known companies that store massive amounts of data. Many of those database are also maintained in the DC area because it is easy to recruit the staff needed to build and maintain the beasts. I work with someone who was the chief DBA for the Marriot reservations database. He was hired to make the move off the mainframe. They didn’t use Macs when he was there.

If the Mac platform was bionic, they would all be using Mac platforms or do you think they are all idiots?

Quote:Anyone that is so STUPID that they can't even read the requirements for a product before they buy it deserves the misery they get. This is not Apple's fault.

Well I hope they learned their lesson and got rid of their Mac and got a real computer.

Quote:My point is that there are more people who prefer the easy of Apple to an environment like Linux/Unix.

I think I already stated Apple is for those that easy is the main priority. There is nothing wrong with that. They could care less if Apple costs more, is not very scalable and that the company has hidden agendas ect. My brother is smart and very successful. He doesn't like computers so he got a Mac. He would never think of upgrading hardware. He would just buy a new one. He has more money than expertise. That is fine but many of us have more expertise than money. Macs are not popular in that group.

"Do you work for Rotech or is this the 'poster girl' for the Macs, proving Macs are the 'little engine that could'?

The Rotech app sounds like a serious app. Forgive me if I am not impressed. I have worked in the DC area for many years. Many of the databases I am familiar with have billions of records. I have yet to see one large database run on a Mac platform. There are few non government databases that can compare with big government. Those companies are well known companies that store massive amounts of data. Many of those database are also maintained in the DC area because it is easy to recruit the staff needed to build and maintain the beasts. I work with someone who was the chief DBA for the Marriot reservations database. He was hired to make the move off the mainframe. They didn’t use Macs when he was there.."

Ahhhh....a federal GSA contractor. My favorite flavor. I worked in the GSA market both in the U.S. and Europe. I think things are a wee bit more complicated than what you are saying. Getting listed on the GSA is everything, otherwise you don't stand a prayer. In the government, it's not bias, it's contracts. None of this has anything to do with Apple not having the technology to stand up against the competition.

I actually spent two years getting Apple listed on a GSA in Europe and sold $millions.

Poster Girl for Mac. I am still chuckling. Great line. Apple's weakest markets are large business and government. So, you win this argument. However, it should also be stated that Apple does little more than give a passing glance to large business and government. This is due to scar tissue they incurred during the late 80s and 90s when they did try to actively pursue these markets. And, it should be emphatically reinforced that this has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's technology abilities, rather the overwhelming issues of selling into large business and government accounts. I've done both.

Interestingly enough, in spite of not really trying to pursue fortune or federal accounts, they are brought in on a regular basis by technologists who understand the power of things like X Serve, and, employees that refuse to accept another Dell. The desktop is always controlled by IT. And IT doesn't want insanely great, they just want something a little newer, updated, maybe a little faster—anything that doesn't pose a dramatic change in the way they do business. That's called job security. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, and with Microsoft holding dominant market share in the enterprise, it is very difficult for competing technologies to approach accounts in this market. The rule of dominant market share is that once established, most companies will continue to buy what they have because it's what they know and it is easier than having to think about anything new. Apple doesn't have the armies of Corporate or Federal account reps that companies like Microsoft and Sun have. I worked in the enterprise for more years than I care to remember. And it was always one step forward, ten steps back. I would show up for my monthly account call, moi, all alone, to see the Microsoft account team on their weekly visit to the same account. Team, you know A and B sales rep, two engineers and maybe even a product manager to boot. I was a damn good sales rep, but SHIT. Can't fight Tiger Tanks with a B B gun.

But this has nothing to do with Apple's technology. X Serve is a proven solution for any size application you wish to throw at it. The second largest credit card processing center in the world is run on a massive X serve cluster. The U.S. Navy nuclear submarine fleet uses X serves. Don't believe me, please check it out.

Rotech is one of a few substantial installations that Apple has done. Billions of records? Phhht. That's the norm for enterprise class systems. I'm not impressed either.

You know what...here's how you can get in good with your Federal buddies. Get them to switch to X Serve. Apple will help and X serve is completely scalable and has the ability to work with just about anything. Certainly Oracle and certainly anything UNIX. And it will come in at half the price. That'll make you a hero.